Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Kirkpatrick V., 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Clayton Kirkpatrick filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the appeals court to direct the district court to rule on his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The appeals court found that the delay in the district court ruling was not unreasonable, so it denied the mandamus petition. However, the denial was without prejudice, allowing Kirkpatrick to file another mandamus petition if the district court did not rule on his § 2254 petition in an expeditious manner going forward. The appeals court also granted Kirkpatrick in forma pauperis status and dispensed with oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-09-11 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7080

    Original Title

    In Re: Kirkpatrick v., 4th Cir. (2002)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Clayton Kirkpatrick filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the appeals court to direct the district court to rule on his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The appeals court found that the delay in the district court ruling was not unreasonable, so it denied the mandamus petition. However, the denial was without prejudice, allowing Kirkpatrick to file another mandamus petition if the district court did not rule on his § 2254 petition in an expeditious manner going forward. The appeals court also granted Kirkpatrick in forma pauperis status and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    3 views2 pages

    In Re: Kirkpatrick V., 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Clayton Kirkpatrick filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the appeals court to direct the district court to rule on his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The appeals court found that the delay in the district court ruling was not unreasonable, so it denied the mandamus petition. However, the denial was without prejudice, allowing Kirkpatrick to file another mandamus petition if the district court did not rule on his § 2254 petition in an expeditious manner going forward. The appeals court also granted Kirkpatrick in forma pauperis status and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 02-7080

    In Re: CLAYTON W. KIRKPATRICK,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

    Submitted:

    September 5, 2002

    (CA-00-466-1-3-MU)

    Decided:

    September 11, 2002

    Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Clayton W. Kirkpatrick, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Clayton W. Kirkpatrick has filed a petition for a writ of
    mandamus, asking this court to direct the district court to rule on
    his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition based on undue delay. Although
    we find that mandamus relief is not warranted because the delay is
    not unreasonable, we deny Kirkpatricks petition for a writ of
    mandamus without prejudice to his ability to file a new petition
    for

    mandamus

    expeditiously.

    relief

    if

    the

    district

    court

    does

    not

    We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

    act
    We

    dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
    are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    PETITION DENIED

    You might also like